solar companies near me

Recently, prominent plastic surgeon Woffles Wu was fined $1,000 for getting his elderly employee to accept the fine and demerit points for him. It is not stated if there was payment or coercion involved in getting his employee to agree to this, though being in a position of power, it can be deduced some degree of subvert coercion is involved.

In 2005, Wu also made the same employee take the rap for him. It was only discovered during the investigation of this offence but it was taken into consideration by the judge.

However, take a look at this similar story from 2010, where a sales executive commited the exact same offence.

In this case, sales executive Charlie Lim was jailed for 6 months and the person who took the rap was also jailed for 6 months.

Let’s recall

  • Both had “intentionally perverted the course of justice”.
  • Both had previously done something similar in getting someone else to take the rap. It is the case of a repeat offender.
  • Charlie got a friend to take the rap through agreement, while Woffles got his employee to do it for him. I would argue the latter is more serious than the former.
  • Charlie is a common man, Woffles is an elite who does plastic surgery for those in high society.
  • Yet, Charlie gets jailed for 6 months, and Woffles gets fined $1,000. A puny sum to anyone who easily earns this amount within an hour of his time.
  • Why was the precedent not followed?

Is Singapore corruption free? I hope to get some form of explanation from the media for this, because a case of good investigative journalism is needed.

Just joking. No one expects good journalism from The Straits Times anymore. We need the HWZ CSI team.